Politics aside, you’re saying that a simple misunderstanding and is something to get all worked up about is enough for this man to not be president? He didn’t even do anything wrong, just made a human error. If you don’t like him, why not make a valid point instead of nitpicking pointless and arbitrary points?
Honestly, it seems like people do this in an attempt to feel better about themselves and build themselves up. A lot of people may very well be guilty of that, and they’d see it if they were to just look inside and be truthful with themselves.

Most people hate Romney because he dismissed 47% of Americans.

How can you support someone who hates 47% of America?

Also, Romney has said multiple times that he HATESCROWS :< :< :<

As I said in the beginning of my post, politics aside. I’m not trying to defend either side or either side’s policies, I’m making the point that making a big decision like voting shouldn’t be decided on arbitrary facts.

Politics aside, you’re saying that a simple misunderstanding and is something to get all worked up about is enough for this man to not be president? He didn’t even do anything wrong, just made a human error. If you don’t like him, why not make a valid point instead of nitpicking pointless and arbitrary points?
Honestly, it seems like people do this in an attempt to feel better about themselves and build themselves up. A lot of people may very well be guilty of that, and they’d see it if they were to just look inside and be truthful with themselves.

It’s a difficult decision.
On one hand, it’s good because it protects the rights of an individual or group who put work into something. On the other hand, it’s bad because it prohibits sharing of knowledge and research, plus it’s constantly abused for malicious intent.

I’m not going to directly comment on your statements, but rather on your delivery.
Regardless of whether or not you agree/disagree with the statements of others, your angry and argumentative vocabulary, such as moronshippiesobliviousit’’s… hilarious and other insults and jabs doesn’t do anything to help you.

It lets you release inside anger and frustration with the other posters, and anything else bothering you. If you want to have an actual discussion where you either prove your point, or learn from others, stuff like that’s just going to get in the way. You aren’t proving a point by talking like that, you’re just adding fuel to the fire for a circular, angry argument between you and other posters, bound to go nowhere.

Might as well give an example. If you reworded that in a way similar to this

I have a different viewpoint. An example of that is in Libya, where such actions may result in disagreements or fights that wouldn’t happen here.

Here’s an example, reading it might provide some insight to my opinion (link)

I think that if both of of us were to have more information about the situation, we could both benefit and understand the situation better.

The example was made to show how apparent how a different word choice and tone can deliver a better point. I hope that everyone this applies to can learn from this and benefit their debate and discussion skills.

That’s what the Luddites thought, and they were wrong. Increased mechanisation in the nineteenth century created far more jobs than it destroyed. However, I do see that with robots things could turn out differently. If they become too good at replacing humans, we could reach a tipping point where jobs do start to evaporate permanently. On the other hand, if humans start to become bio/mechanical/electronic hybrids, robots may cease to be relevant in a lot of contexts.

If unemployment figures start to rocket, it would be a relatively simple matter for a government to pass legislation outlawing robots in certain workplaces. That would probably be very popular among the workers too, and governments always like to be popular. It may sound far fetched now, but as I said, there is going to be a period of great social change when new ideas will take root. New problems will need new and sometimes radical solutions. None of us can foresee what the future holds, and it will probably be different from anything we can imagine now.

I see it as a big difference though. Back then, the mechanization increased what a person could do when they themselves did the work, now the mechanization isn’t about increasing a person’s productivity, it’s about replacing the people who are doing the work.

And besides, why do you choose to brag about events that probably did not happen? No one here likes you more for it. Is it for attention? You’re just getting bad attention, hopefully one day you’ll understand why this was a bad idea.

I think they should introduce hand to hand combat skills in the Halo series. I understand that it’s a shooting game, but when you run out of ammo you should be able to discard your weapon and kick butt like that… That would make for some pretty amazing pvp.

There’s always melee, as well as the energy sword and the shotgun. CQC is already prevalent enough.

Hey, do you like games? So do we — that’s what makes Kongregate the best source of free games online. We have thousands upon thousands of free online games, from both one-man indies and large studios, rated and filtered so you can play the best of the best. Read more »